Theistic Evolution: A Design Theory at the Level of
Genetic Information

By Gordon C. Mills

The author has recently proposed a theory of theistic evolution as an alternative
to the naturalistic theory. If one accepts the possibility, as most Christians
do, that God has been involved in the origin and development of living organisms,
then the question becomes: when and in what manner has divine agency acted?
I believe that there are a minimum of three possible positions, l
each affirming the sovereignty of God over all his creation and over all natural
law but differing in regard to the manner of that divine activity .In the first
position (View SC), the activity of God has been expressed in the appearance
of fully formed organisms at various levels of taxonomic complexity. In contrast
to the above is the second position (View EC), as expressed by Van Till, that
"molecules and organisms have in fact accomplished the changes envisioned
in the macroevolutionary paradigm simply by employing their resident capacities."2
Elsewhere, Van Till expresses this same view in a slightly different manner:

In each case the Creator calls upon earthly material to do something. . .The
Creator does not speak words of magic that have coercive or manipulative power
over earthly material, but words of royal edict that call upon the earth and
water to use their resident capacities-- the gifts of active being already
given to them by the Creator-to produce the plants and animals that the Creator
had in mind.3

This view then clearly holds that the creator has endowed atoms and molecules
with the capacity to initially form living organisms, and once formed these
organisms would proceed through the developmental stages that we see represented
in the paleontological record.

A third position (View TTE) as expressed by the present author is as follows:

that in the history of the origin and development of living organisms, at
various levels of organization, there has been a continuing provision of new
genetic information by an intelligent cause.4

Although I have included the phrase: "the origin . . . of living organisms"
in the statement of the theory, it must be noted that more than genetic information
would be required for the formation of the first living cells. In that case,
certain structures and metabolic processes would also need to be supplied by
that intelligent cause in order to utilize any provided genetic information.
For a theist that intelligent cause is God.

There are clearly some distinctions between these different views as they relate
to our understanding of the relationships of organisms. First of all, they differ
in regard to the evolutionary concept of genealogical continuity or common ancestry.
In the first view (SC), similarities of multicellular organisms would be a consequence
of having a common creator, but ancestral relationships would be more limited.
Different phyla of eukaryotic organisms (those with a cell nucleus) need not
have an ancestral relationship, nor necessarily would all classes or orders
of organisms. For the more simple organisms (prokaryotes, or cells without a
cell nucleus), the relationship would be that of having a common creator with
some measure of ancestral relationships. In contrast, the second position (View
EC) would place the activity of the creator at the level of the initial creation
of atoms and molecules and in general would accept the views of evolutionary
theorists regarding genealogical continuity. It should be noted, however, that
Van Till clarifies his own position by saying: "every one of these processes
and every connective pathway in the possibility space of viable creatures is
itself a mindfully designed provision from a Creator possessing unfathomable
intelligence."5 It is not clear, however, how Van Till believes
the creator could express himself in this manner if he believes the creation
has already been fully equipped. Presumably it is by God's governance at a level
which is not in any way amenable to scientific study. My own position (View
TTE) would appear to be between the other two views since it provides for divine
provision of genetic information to already existing organisms. Hence there
could be considerable genealogical continuity, but that continuity would not
necessarily be absolute. However, the continuity in this case would be clearly
subject to designs of genetic information provided by the creator. In regard
to similarities of organisms, these would be a consequence in some measure of
ancestral relationships, but these similarities would also share the informational
provisions of a common creator.

In regard to correspondence to current scientific evidence, the first (SC)
and third (TTE) views consider evidence for the spontaneous origin of life by
chance events to be totally inadequate as an explanation. The second view (EC)
would appear to accept this evidence as the best available and hence the perspective
that should be taught in our schools. The author and his coauthors have recently
critiqued the adequacy of the evidence for the origin of life and for evolution
in current high school biology textbooks.6 Errors and overstatements
in those books were noted that appear to be designed to convince students of
the validity of completely naturalistic7 explanations for the origin
and development of living organisms. The authors have noted the statement by
prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose in regard to the present state
of origin of life research:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields
of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the
immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its
solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments
in the field either end in stalemates or in a confession of ignorance.8

Reviews that are critical of origin of life research have been presented in
books by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen, and by Shapiro.9 In addition,
the probability of obtaining by chance events the genetic information in cytochrome
c, a simple protein molecule with a sequence of ca. 100 amino acids has been
calculated to be 2 x 10-65.10 Thus the evidence weighs
heavily against the plausibility of the second view (EC), i.e., that God has
endowed atoms and molecules with the capacity to form living organisms. This
type of evidence regarding the properties of molecules will be considered in
more detail subsequently.

I consider the view (TTE) of theistic evolution that I have proposed to be
fully in accord with the evidence of the paleontologic record and with studies
of modern biochemistry and molecular biology. It appears to the author that
it would be somewhat more difficult to correlate the first view (SC) with each
of these two fields of research endeavor simply because of the many discontinuities
inherent in that view. Likewise, for the same reason it is more difficult to
propose research studies which might support that view (SC) because major groups
of organisms would have no ancestral link but would be related only by having
a common creator.

In regard to the philosophical or theological question: "Where does new
genetic information come from?", a fully naturalistic view of evolution
would insist that it be accounted for by chance events alone. However, there
would appear to be' no way that scientific experiments could verify that
chance events actually were the causative agent in the appearance of new genetic
information, although the scientific data might be consistent with that
explanation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that modern science because
of its assumptions and methodologies simply cannot verify supernatural
creative acts of God. However, it is possible that many scientific experiments
could be carried out that might provide evidence that would be consistent
with the theory of theistic evolution (TTE) that I have proposed. It is
also possible that experiments could provide evidence that is not consistent
with the theory or that might suggest that one of the other views (SC or EC)
is more nearly correct.

The view of Van Till (EC) appears to provide for acceptance of the proposals
and speculations of evolutionary scientists who have a naturalistic explanation
for all of life. It appears to this author that view EC has failed to challenge
critically the presuppositions and evidence on which those fully naturalistic
views are based. The author11 has previously examined some presuppositions
dealing with the origin of life and with evolution, and the more recent book
by Philip Johnson12 argues persuasively from a philosophical standpoint
against completely naturalistic views of evolution.

In the sections to follow, I will deal first with a more detailed explanation
of the concept of genetic information and the probability considerations that
I have used in support of a role for divine agency in creation. I will then
critique in more detail Van Till's concepts of theistic evolution and functional
integrity and will contrast my own views with the atheistic views of Richard
Dawkins in his proposal of cumulative selection. Possible relationships of my
theory to hypotheses of ancestral descent, natural selection and punctuated
equilibria will be considered as well as a few additional closing theological
implications.

What is Genetic Information?

For those not familiar with modem biochemistry or molecular biology, one may
most readily explain genetic information by considering the analogy to human
language. In the English language we use twenty-six letters, and if we neglect
the spaces and punctuation marks we may combine these letters to make words
of varying length. The words may be combined into sentences, the sentences into
paragraphs, etc. However, only specific sequences of letters, words, sentences,
etc. provide meaning. One does not obtain meaningful sentences from random sequences
of letters. Similarly, for genetic information in protein molecules twenty different
amino acids are linked together end-to-end in specific sequences. Smaller proteins
may be made up of chains of possibly one hundred amino acids, while larger proteins
may have up to one thousand amino acids in the linear chain. Again, however,
the proteins must have specific sequences of amino acids to be functional. Random
sequences are nonsense (i.e., they are not functional).13 However,
in living organisms the sequence of amino acids in proteins is always determined
by the genetic information residing in DNA. DNA is made up of linear polymers
of four different nucleotides arranged in specific sequences. The variety of
possible arrangements of these nucleotides provides DNA with a tremendous capacity
for storage of information. The nucleotides contain one of four purine or pyrimidine
bases, adenine or guanine, and cytosine or thymine. For coding regions of DNA,
these bases are arranged into groups of three (triplet codes or codons), with
each codon providing information for a particular amino acid. Consequently,
the sequence of codons in a coding region of DNA determines the sequence of
amino acids in a protein molecule.14 DNA also has additional genetic
information providing for specific sequences of nucleotides in transfer RNA
and in ribosomal RNA; also it has other sequences of bases that provide for
coordinated control of all protein and RNA production. It must be emphasized
again, however, that random sequences of DNA are nonsense.

The Significance of Genetic Information

In a 1989 article by Werner Gitt, one notes the following statements:

Throughout physics, the natural sciences, and technology as well, energy
and matter are considered to be basic, universal quantities. But the concept
of information has become just as fundamental and far-reaching . . . information
has rightly become known as the third fundamental, universal quantity. 15

Gitt, who is Head of Data Processing at the Federal Institute of Physics and
Technology in Germany, deals with the topic of information very broadly, considering
it from the standpoint of languages (including mathematical signs, engineering
plans, various biological signaling systems, etc.), but he notes especially
the capacity for information storage in the amino acid sequences of proteins
and the nucleotide sequences of nucleic acids. Regarding information storage
in the DNA molecule, he notes: "In this super storage device, the storage
density is exploited to the physicochemical limit: its value for the DNA molecule
is 45 x 1012 times that of the mega chip" (p. 2). Gitt discusses
five levels of information and provides fourteen theorems or empirical principles
related to information theory. In his concept of information, several principles
are of special importance to the present paper: "No information chain can
exist without a mental origin. . . No information can exist without an initial
mental source. . .No information can exist without a will" (p. 7). This
brings me to the fundamental question that I have posed: What is the source
of new genetic information? Since living organisms have a tremendous
amount of genetic information stored in their DNA, it seems that one must logically
pose an intelligent cause as the ultimate source of that information. Since
eukaryotic organisms have much more genetic information than prokaryotes and
since higher multicellular organisms have much more genetic information than
simpler forms, it appears essential to postulate a continuing provision
for that information. Consequently, the author (Mills, 1995) has proposed a
theory of theistic evolution as noted earlier (view TTE).

An important consideration in this theory of theistic evolution is the meaning
of new genetic information. I must carefully differentiate the introduction
of new genetic information into the genome of cells from the transfer of genetic
information. As noted elsewhere (Mills, 1995), interspecies transfer of genetic
information occurs in bacteria and occasionally in higher organisms. In the
latter case, the transferred gene appears to be carried by a viral vector. Intraspecies
transfer of genetic material is known to occur in all organisms. Consequently,
in my theory I choose to exclude transferred genetic information from the basic
theory. Likewise, in regard to coding sequences of DNA I have arbitrarily chosen
to consider only DNA coding for proteins of at least one hundred amino acids
in length. In addition, as discussed in more detail in my previous paper (Mills,
1995), protein families, genes responsible for antibody production, and genes
for certain peptides require special consideration. Even with these possible
exceptions, I include genes for nearly all proteins and the different types
of RNA. The proteins include not only the protein enzymes and other structural
proteins but also receptor proteins, protein hormones, and especially proteins
involved in the control of cell and organ development.

In addition to the basic statement of my theory of theistic evolution, I have
listed the following as postulates to that theory (Mills, 1995): (1) that coding
sequences of DNA need not be expressed immediately when the information is provided.
They could remain dormant (repressed) for hundreds, thousands or possibly millions
of years with subsequent expression possibly, but not necessarily, being triggered
by chance events (mutations, gene crossovers, gene conversions, etc.); (2) that
genetic information for events generally termed as macroevolution might be supplied
over either a short period of time or over a somewhat longer period of time
with the possibility of initial repression of that information; (3) that genetic
information once expressed might become dormant (repressed), only to be expressed
again hundreds, thousands or possibly millions of years later. Postulate 1 is
proposed to consider possibilities for rapid diversification of species particularly
following various mass extinctions. Postulate 2 is proposed to provide for macroevolutionary
events that might require a number of new genes and control factors; in these
cases the expression of some of these genes would be of no value until all were
expressed. Postulate 3 is proposed to consider, for example, possible explanations
for the appearance of fins or flippers in marine reptiles (presumably arising
from land reptiles) or the appearance of fins or flippers in marine mammals
(presumably arising from land dwelling mammals). In postulating repression of
genes for extended periods, the author is aware that these genes would need
protective mechanisms (copy editing, repair enzymes, etc.) to prevent deleterious
mutations prior to the time they were fully expressed. I would also note that
my concept of genetic information would include not only DNA coding sequences
but also those DNA sequences adjacent to coding sequences, as well as those
found elsewhere in the cellular genome, that are involved in regulating the
expression or repression of coding sequences. It should be clear that the basic
statement of my theory of theistic evolution is not dependent upon the validity
of the three postulates. Presently used technology should provide the means
of searching for various developmental genes at different taxonomic levels of
animal organisms and indicate whether these genes are retained and also repressed
or expressed as suggested in the three postulates.

Probability Considerations

I have noted previously that the probability of obtaining by chance the specific
sequence of amino acids in a functional protein was extremely small (2 x 10-65
for cytochrome c). Yet, many hundreds of protein molecules are required for
the simplest living bacterial cell. The tremendous complexity of eukaryotic
cells is indicated in the following statement from a recent review: " Animal
cells must express over 100,000 genes in a temporally and spatially controlled
fashion during cellular differentiation and development."16
When I first proposed my view of theistic evolution, several scientists expressed
to me their view that we do not have sufficient information about living organisms
to use probability considerations in any argument. When one attempts to calculate
the probability of forming a living cell from any reasonable prebiotic materials,
so many assumptions are necessary that no precise probability value could be
obtained, although one might calculate upper and lower limits of probability.
When applied to a particular protein molecule such as cytochrome c, we have
a great deal of information regarding which of the twenty amino acids may occupy
each of the one hundred four positions in the linear chain of the protein molecule.
We know that in twenty-one positions the particular amino acid is invariant
(i.e., it cannot be changed without a loss of function); in twenty other positions
only two or three very similar amino acids will provide a functional enzyme.17
Consequently, the probability of achieving by chance a protein molecule with
the complexity of cytochrome c can be calculated with considerable accuracy.
Since cytochrome c is reasonably typical of small protein enzymes and many proteins
are much larger than cytochrome c, the probability of achieving by chance the
correct sequences in many hundreds or thousands of proteins is clearly vanishingly
small. Russell Maatman deals with probability considerations from a similar
standpoint in his recent book.18

Another aspect of probability considerations comes from statements such as
that of George Murphy: "For it has to be remembered that there is nothing
scientifically impossible about the spontaneous emergence against fantastic
odds of a protein from a prebiotic soup. .."19 Murphy makes
the above statement even though he had previously made several qualifying statements"
...we can say that the spontaneous emergence of protein-nucleotide systems under
equilibrium conditions seems to be extremely improbable," and " ...claiming
the Spirit's involvement in the low probability emergence of life" (p.
165). There are several important considerations to note regarding the quotations
from Murphy's article. (1) Probability calculations are dependent upon chance
or random events. If divine agency (the Holy Spirit) is involved, the events
are no longer random. (2) If divine agency is involved, the pathways and processes
for the formation of a protein (or of living organisms) from a hypothetical
prebiotic soup need not follow the schemes suggested in origin of life scenarios.
(3) Murphy does not say precisely what he means by the term "low probability."
One might consider winning the Texas lottery (probability of 0.64 x 10-10)
an event of low probability, but someone selects the correct listing of six
numbers between one and fifty at least once a month because of the large number
of tickets sold. However, there is a vast difference between a probability value
of 10-10 and 10-65 and especially of 10-1000.
These differences become even more marked when one notes that events for the
origin of proteins or of life would have to occur in a very limited time in
a very limited spatial volume.

As noted previously, view EC of Van Till postulates that the creation has been
equipped by the creator to do whatever the creator calls upon it to do. As expressed
by Van Till (1993, p. 392): " ...by God's thoughtful provision of those
potentialities from the beginning of space and time until here and now - these
awesome wonders have been achieved." If those creative potentialities had
been placed by God in atoms and molecules, then those potentialities would have
been discovered in our study of the chemical and biochemical properties of molecules
over the past fifty or more years of research activity. All sorts of biochemical
reactions have been classified into those that will proceed, sometimes in both
directions (reversible reactions), those that react spontaneously and those
that react at an appreciable rate only in the presence of a catalyst (often
an enzyme). Surely God's creative acts are responsible for all of these types
of reactions and the limitations that are placed upon them. For example, the
hydrolysis of the dipeptide made up of the amino acids alanine and valine will
yield with an appropriate enzymatic catalyst a molecule each of alanine and
valine.

alanyl-valine + H2O > alanine + valine

This is essentially an irreversible reaction in an aqueous solution; it does
not proceed in both directions. Alanine and valine do not react in an aqueous
solution to form a dipeptide. Speculation regarding origin of life scenarios
requires many reactions to proceed that have been demonstrated to be irreversible
(e.g., amino acids to proteins, purines and pyrimidines to nucleic acids, etc.).
Should one conclude that this world is developmentally incomplete because God's
laws of chemistry do not provide for the reversal of these reactions? Modern
biochemistry has dealt with hundreds of similar biochemical reactions and the
means utilized by living organisms to supply alternate sources of energy (e.g.,
adenosine triphosphate) to drive reactions that would not otherwise proceed.
Origin of life researchers are aware of this problem, and much of their efforts
are directed toward proposing means (often very implausible) of supplying energy
to drive reactions.

Recently, the direction of origin of life research has appeared to turn more
to RNA as the primordial precursor of living organisms. This stems from the
fact that some types of RNA have been found to have catalytic activity, and
RNA nucleotide sequences could potentially serve as a template for DNA synthesis.
This origin of life hypothesis is totally inadequate for the following reasons:
(1) The four possible precursor ribonucleotides have never been shown to be
formed in prebiotic simulations, partly because the number of possible incorrect
isomers that might be formed are so numerous (c.f., Fig. 4-4 of The Mystery
of Life's Origin, note 9). (2) RNA with catalytic activity (a ribozyme)
has very specific nucleotide sequences20 (i.e., it has genetic information)
and would not be formed by chance. (3) The catalytic activity of ribozymes is
very limited; it is predominantly a nuclease or a nucleotidyl transferase activity
with some slight esterase activity (Cech, 1993). These catalytic activities
would be totally inadequate for any living organism. The primary thesis of Van
Till's "doctrine of functional integrity" as applied to origin of
life studies seems to be that the most fundamental molecules such as hydrogen,
methane, ammonia, cyanide, etc., or at a higher level, amino acids, purines,
pyrimidines, sugars, etc., all have the innate capacity within themselves to
react and form living organisms. I would argue that the innate capacities of
these molecules are those that we observe in the laboratory and that those are
the capacities that God chose to give to those molecules. This explains
why, in my theory of theistic evolution (view TTE), I have proposed a continuing
provision of new genetic information by an intelligent cause to account
for life's origin and for macroevolutionary events. Only in that way can the
thermodynamic and informational barriers to the first living organisms be overcome
and the later developmental changes in these organisms be accounted for.21

Van Till has also criticized view SC and my view (TTE) by saying that they
imply that the economy of this world must be developmentally incomplete. He
indicates that these views would require: " ...that the Creator is required
to perform extraordinary creative acts in the formative history of the world
in order that new forms of life (including the first form of life) might appear
at the times indicated in the paleontological record."22 Van
Till argues that if the creator did not provide initially for all of the innate
capacities residing in atoms and molecules, this world would be developmentally
incomplete; that there would be gaps and deficiencies in his creation. Van Till
has chosen to call his view the "doctrine of creation's functional integrity."
Is this, however, a valid position? Is it not limiting God in the manner he
chooses to create? Surely, God could create in whatever manner, in whatever
time sequence that he chooses. John Stek, in a book chapter entitled "What
Says the Scripture?" has this to say regarding the use of the term bara',
which is translated in English as create.

... it is silent as to the utilization of pre-existent materials or the
time (whether at the beginning of time or in the midst of time, whether
instantaneously or over a period of time) or the means involved. In
biblical language, bara' affirms of some existent reality only that
God conceived, willed, and effected it.23

Although Stek later in that same chapter takes a position similar to that of
Van Till, it should be clear that the "doctrine of functional integrity"
as applied to biological origins is not derived from the meaning of the word
bara',

Critique of Richard Dawkins' Cumulative Selection

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker has convinced many
that his arguments for evolution by cumulative natural selection24
are perfectly plausible. He also repeatedly demeans any possible theistic explanations
of evolution. Indeed, a primary thrust of his book is to demonstrate that there
is no need for a belief in God. It is of interest to note what Dawkins says
regarding the probability of life:

The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale. Whatever
is the explanation for life, it cannot be chance. The true explanation for
the existence of life must embody the very antithesis of chance. . .Cumulative
selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the only explanation
that has ever been proposed, for the existence of life's complex design.25

Dawkins says that chance cannot explain life but then proceeds
to say that cumulative selection, which is dependent upon chance
events, can explain life. He takes this step by attaching "purpose"
to his cumulative selection. Since purpose is usually associated with an intelligent
being, it appears Dawkins is really requiring an intelligent cause while denying
that there is a God.

How does Dawkins propose to overcome extremely improbable events? He notes:
However improbable a large scale change may be, smaller changes are less
improbable. And provided we postulate a sufficiently large series of sufficiently
finely graded intermediates, we shall be able to derive anything from anything
else, without invoking astronomical improbabilities (p. 317). Let us examine
this proposed solution of Dawkins more closely. First of all, the overall probability
of an event is not changed by breaking it down into small steps, although breaking
it down into steps would increase the overall time available. Secondly, every
one of the finely graded intermediates would have to be an improvement, i.e.,
have selective value. Thirdly, Dawkins is still dependent upon very improbable
events for his finely graded intermediates. He argues that with 1020
planets in the universe, even probabilities of 10-40 can be reasonably
overcome. This is very deceptive reasoning because we are considering life on
earth, not life in the universe. Also Dawkins readily postulates that probabilities
of 10-20 present no significant barrier. He classifies this as a
reasonable "ration of luck." If the probability of achieving fifteen
functional proteins was 10-1000, one might break this down into one
hundred "finely graded intermediates" each with a probability of 10-10.
Each of these one hundred intermediates would have to have improved functional
value and be produced within reasonable spatial and time limits. For the production
of functional proteins, it would appear to be nearly impossible even to suggest
what those "finely graded intermediates," each with improved function
might be. Surely, it must take a great deal of faith in the accomplishments
of chance and cumulative natural selection to make a proposal
such as that of Dawkins. Can one really postulate as a scientific theory
something that depends on a "ration of luck" as Dawkins has and
then proceed to argue that it is not only reasonable but probable? I believe
not.

There are many other portions of Dawkins' book that I could critique, but space
will not permit me to do so. I hope that with the above illustration, I have
shown that Dawkins' view is not really based on science but is dependent upon
faith, faith in the direction and purpose attributed to "cumulative natural
selection," which in turn is dependent upon chance events.

Simplicity, Complexity and Ancestral Descent

One of the significant aspects of my theory of theistic evolution (View TTE)
is that there is no need to postulate initial simplicity in regard to
the origin of life. An intelligent cause could have provided genetic information
for whatever degree of complexity that was necessary. A major component of the
naturalistic theory of evolution has been that the earliest living organisms
must have been very simple, with this requirement being applied to structures
of enzymes, morphological structures (membranes, intracellular organelles, etc.),
and even to a simpler genetic code. However, if we examine living simple organisms
we find no data in support of this postulated simplicity requirement. The enzymes
and other components necessary for all of the most fundamental life processes
are very complex. This is true for enzymes involved in transcription of information
(synthesis of messenger RNA using a DNA template) and in translation of information
(synthesis of proteins utilizing messenger RNA, ribosomes, transfer RNA, etc.).
This complexity extends as well to the enzymes and processes in the storage
and utilization of energy and to those enzymes involved in the synthesis of
the various macromolecular components of the cell. I must conclude that the
evidence, when examined closely, provides no support for the hypothesis that
all aspects of life must have been simple in the beginning. It would seem that
the view of Van Till (EC) would also have a requirement for simplicity while
the other view (SC) would, of course, have no such requirement.

Another component of the broad view of the general theory of evolution is descent
through common ancestry. It is such an important component because the theory
presupposes the monophyletic origin of life (i.e., all life began with an original
archetypal cell). Therefore, all present living organisms have descended from
the original living cell and must be related by lines of descent. The role of
ancestral descent or genealogical continuity is not nearly as essential to my
view of theistic evolution (TTE). Where the evidence is lacking there is no
compelling need to postulate that all organisms will one day be linked by ancestral
relationships. When the evidence for common ancestry is sound and is established
by experimental observations, there is no problem in accepting the data. It
should be emphasized that in my view (TTE) consideration of ancestral descent
would include the possibility of new genetic information provided by an intelligent
cause.

Natural Selection and Punctuated Equilibrium

The Darwinian view of evolution was one of gradualism-tiny progressive changes
in organisms with natural selection serving as the directive force for establishing
these changes. The initial mechanism of change was considered to be advantageous
mutations. Eldredge and Gould26 recognized that gradualism was not
consistent with the record of paleontology and proposed their theory of punctuated
equilibria. They noted that new life forms often appeared suddenly in the geological
record with little or no evidence of transitional groups. They changed from
"gradualism" to the idea of "sudden jumps" interspersed
with periods of minimal or no change (stasis). It should be noted, however,
that in terms of paleontology, suddenly may mean periods of thousands of years.
The theory of punctuated equilibria is still dependent upon mutations of various
types to produce the initial change in the genome with natural selection supplying
the mechanisms for establishment of the modified genome. My view (TTE) would
not contradict Eldredge and Gould's proposal but would add an additional explanation
for the appearance of new life forms when these new forms required new genetic
information. Many of the lesser changes in organisms, particularly at the species
level, might be accounted for by some of the newer concepts of intraspecies
or interspecies gene transfer as well as the more traditional explanations (gene
conversions, gene crossovers, gene duplications, mutations, etc.). I would consider
natural selection to have played a significant role in establishing these changes
in life forms only after they were produced.

Additional Theological Considerations

A major question that has been raised in regard to view SC and will surely
be raised in regard to my view (TTE) is how do they differ from a "God
of the gaps" theology? I have dealt with this question in more detail in
my previous paper (Mills, 1995) but will simply summarize my position here.
When one speaks of a creator as having a continuous involvement in creation,
not only in providing infusions of genetic information but also as Author, Sustainer
and Finisher of all natural processes, then surely any charge of a "God
of the gaps" theology is avoided. In my view (TTE) there would be no limitation
or interference in the scientific study of natural events; the normal processes
of scientific inquiry could proceed without interruption. My view differs only
slightly from that of Van Till when he considers God's governance of natural
events. His view of governance as providing direction would not cause a disruption
of the natural order. In my proposal for the provision of new genetic information,
I have suggested a means by which a creator may have provided that direction.

I also hope I have avoided the pitfalls that undermined the design argument
of William Paley's Natural Theology in the nineteenth century. Brooke notes
that Paley argued: " ...that every part of every organism has been meticulously
designed for its function. .."27 My view of theistic evolution
clearly encourages the search for mechanisms of change and avoids the claim
"that every part of every organism is perfectly designed." Ian Barbour
notes:

Chance as well as law contributes to evolutionary change and the appearance
of higher levels of organization, but it makes the outcome unpredictable.
In such a world we would have to think of design as a general direction rather
than a detailed plan. We can stand in awe at the magnificent sweep of cosmic
history without assuming that everything in it represents a specific expression
of divine wisdom.28

I believe the above quotation to be in accord with my theory of theistic evolution
(View TTE). The provision of genetic information might appear at first glance
to provide a detailed plan, but there is sufficient freedom in the expression
of that information to provide for many variations. I believe I have avoided
the question of divine determinism by leaving many evolutionary changes, particularly
those at the species level, to chance events.

There are clearly aspects of God's governance of his creation that I have not
touched upon. As one compares lower and higher levels in any phylogenetic tree,
the marked similarities in sequence structure for particular protein molecules
(e.g., cytochrome c) are clearly evident. It is true that each step in these
pathways could be a consequence of one or more point mutations. But is there
not also a need for guidance in the selection of viable pathways? The possibility
seems remote that all of the dead ends have necessarily been selected by random
mutational events and lost because they are not viable. This is an area that
is not considered in my theory of theistic evolution but is certainly worth
considering as an aspect of God's governance in an overall Christian theistic
view. It could also be true that the continuing provision of new genetic information
by an intelligent cause could be far more extensive than my arbitrary dividing
line would suggest. My intention in proposing this theory is to open up such
possibilities for serious consideration and possible experimentation.

Conclusion

I wish to make clear that my understanding of theistic evolution, which I present
as a Christian view, not the Christian view, should be freely
open to criticism by the entire scientific community. If the scientific evidence
shows that my proposal is clearly wrong, it should be rejected. If my view needs
to be modified to bring it more completely into accord with the facts of science,
it should be modified. At the same time, I would argue that this view should
not be rejected by definition, by saying it is not science, but should be evaluated
in the light of scientific evidence. It is true that my view of theistic evolution
involves a theological or philosophical presupposition, but I believe one can
show that completely naturalistic views of evolution are undergirded as well
by a philosophical presupposition: namely, that chance alone can account for
the origin and evolution of all living organisms.

My understanding of theistic evolution can be phrased in terms that should
permit it to be included as an alternate view in chapters on the origin of life
and on evolution in high school and college textbooks. The dominance of a completely
naturalistic view on these topics in high school textbooks in the United States
has been the subject of a recent critique by this author and coauthors.29

Dr. Gordon C. Mills argues in favor of a version of theistic
evolution on the basis of newer concepts of information which indicate that
naturalistic explanations of the origin and development of living organisms
cannot account for new genetic information in organisms. He suggests that theistic
evolution is in accord with findings of modem molecular biology and paleontology
and would be appropriate for incorporation into secular biology textbooks. Dr.
Mills is Emeritus Professor in the Department of Human Biological Chemistry
and Genetics at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.

References and Footnotes

The first view might be categorized as special creation
(SC), progressive creation, or creation by intelligent design. Van Till
has suggested that the second view be referred to as evolutionary creation
(EC) although it may also be considered to be theistic evolution. Although
I have chosen to call the third view a theory of theistic evolution (TTE),
it could also be called progressive creation or creation by intelligent
design. For convenience, I shall refer to these three views as SC, EC and
TTE. I have given no consideration at this point to the time aspect of divine
activity in discussing these views except as noted for EC and TTE. Russell
Maatman has an extensive discussion of the time aspect in Chapter 10 of
his recent book, The Impact of Evolutionary Theory: A Christian View
(Dordt College Press, 1993).

G. C. Mills, " A Theory of Theistic Evolution as an
Alternative to the Naturalistic Theory," Perspectives on Science
and Christian Faith, in press (1995). Subsequent references to this
paper will be identified in the text by Mills (1995).

It should be noted that by dry heating of amino acid mixtures
containing very high concentrations of the two dicarboxylic amino acids,
aspartic and glutamic acids, Sidney Fox and others have produced random
polymers. They refer to these as proteinoids. These polymers contain not
only the usual peptide linkages found in proteins but also branched chains
linked to the epsilon amino group of lysine, the 4-carboxyl group of aspartic
acid, or the 5-carboxyl group of glutamic acid. These polymers do have very
limited catalytic activity, usually for very simple hydrolytic reactions.
They do not have the capacity for catalyzing any significant sequential
reactions necessary for living organisms. Since they are a mixture of random
polymers, they cannot be said to contain genetic information. Likewise,
they have no capacity to reproduce themselves. For a more detailed discussion,
the reader is referred to Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen, The Mystery of
Life's Origin, 155-158.

For illustrative purposes, I have omitted messenger RNA
(mRNA) in my discussion. Information from DNA is first transcribed into
mRNA, and then the message is translated into protein in a very complex
process utilizing ribosomes and transfer RNA.